4 ms·

Photography is a wide field, and aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, as usual. For example, if you do photography which goes towards technical fields, arc

Photography is a wide field, and aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, as usual. For example, if you do photography which goes towards technical fields, architecture, forensics, archaeology, reproduction, documentation in general of whatever, and also a good deal of landscape photography, chances are a more perfect rendering on behalf of the used lenses is one of the goals. Some of that doesn't even have to do with aesthetics to begin with, but it is almost a hard requirement. Let me give a counterexample: Leica Summilux 35/1.4 (FLE), or Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.7, both with a very similar rendering, which includes a very strong field curvature wide open. Namely, the focus "plane" bends to further away spots towards the image corners. Using these lenses in the right way can create a 3D effect, and weirdly enough, you can see that even in a viewfinder with a single eye, which conceptually makes no sense, but truly is like that. Seen it using A7/A7s, tested it with other persons, they all report this effect. This rendering is so unique that even non-photographer friends eventually could tell images apart made by the Leica (if around wide open settings). In return, it doesn't have the nicest bokeh, or more like you should keep an eye on the background, but I also picked it for its harsher/"grittier" rendering with that. Another example: Leica Summarit 90/2.4 vs. Zeiss Loxia 85/2.4. On my travels I use the Leica, but otherwise I try to grab the Zeiss. Thing is, the Leica, like its other 90mm brethren, suffers from veiling flare (yes, even the hailed Summicron, and also the old Tele-Elmarit), a problem the Zeiss doesn't have. In return, the Zeiss is bulkier and has almost twice the weight, so for travels (multi-day hiking etc.) the Leica has advantages over the Zeiss, despite being the inferior lens from a rendering point of view. Read: Sometimes you have to compromise on "image quality" (very fuzzy term really) for other factors like usability and so on. A common theme with the more perfect lenses: Larger + heavier, and that is not always a good compromise to take. Which means there are many factors which play into lens choice, as usual, driven by a wide range of preferences and requirements. That also means it is not really possible to make general statements for one or the other, but "depends".

isatty 4y ago
Do you have any sample images that showcase the qualities you are talking about? I can probably search it up myself, but if there’s anything you would like to showcase. Thanks!
- pixelfarmer 4y ago
  I don't have pictures online to show around. After using that lens for years now I think there are a number of factors contributing to this 3D effect: * In the center of the image things behind the sujet are strongest out of focus. * With the focus "plane" wandering off to the rear towards the corners, you can put up some "visual pillars" on the sides which are somewhat in focus, but shouldn't be from our own visual training. That seems to mentally push whatever is actually in focus in the center even further to the front. It also means if you just isolate the sujet without that most of the effect goes poof. * On my A7s, through that field curvature, the corners are also somewhat smeared. * The lens actually does have a lot of microcontrast in the center, i.e. is really sharp. From what I can find online, some good examples of the effect are shown here: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-ultron-11-7-35-mm-review/ https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-ultron-11-7-35-mm-... I mentioned this lens, because it is in certain ways superior than the Leica, but in overall has very similar visual qualities. It doesn't show in every wide open picture, it requires this "context" to work its magic, and some of the examples show that. Another lens with this effect is the Voigtländer 21/1.8, but because it suffers in general in the sharpness department wide open it is less pronounced. I think on the above linked website there should be some examples for that, too. More perfect lenses look ... different. They certainly work better if you don't want these "visual pillars", so it is not like that field curvature is always the perfect thing to have, quite the contrary. However, it is a tool, or can be used as such, like so many other things in photography.
dannyw 4y ago
Are there any budget-friendly lens (assuming vintage) that also showcases this effect?
- pixelfarmer 4y ago
  Sorry for the late reply. And I have no idea what other lenses show this effect, but I wouldn't exclude that possibility. From what I gathered you will need a field curvature where towards the edges the focus runs away from the camera. It needs to be a somewhat faster lens, because stopped down the effect is less pronounced. And finally, it should be sharp enough to convey this "in focus" vs. "out of focus". I didn't know about all this at the time I got the Leica, only that it had field curvature wide open, and learned these things through using it. But considering available pictures online, there are maybe ways to figure the field curvature out, because most test/review sites are rather useless in that regard: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4042117089/roger-cicala-why-i-dont-use-an-mtf-bench-to-test-my-own-lenses https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4042117089/roger-cicala-why... and for some additional info on top of that https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351719699/roger-cicala-field-curvature-for-fun-and-profit https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351719699/roger-cicala-fi... Once you have seen these "special" images and their look it also makes it easier skimming through images from other lenses if they show that here and there. Roger also jokes about the 3D-pop at the end of the 2nd link, but considering that tilt-shift lenses can produce a miniature look by meddling with the "field curvature", getting specific other looks through usage of actual field curvature isn't too far fetched of a concept. It is some sort of an optical illusion in the end.

isatty 4y ago

Do you have any sample images that showcase the qualities you are talking about? I can probably search it up myself, but if there’s anything you would like to showcase. Thanks!

pixelfarmer 4y ago
I don't have pictures online to show around. After using that lens for years now I think there are a number of factors contributing to this 3D effect: * In the center of the image things behind the sujet are strongest out of focus. * With the focus "plane" wandering off to the rear towards the corners, you can put up some "visual pillars" on the sides which are somewhat in focus, but shouldn't be from our own visual training. That seems to mentally push whatever is actually in focus in the center even further to the front. It also means if you just isolate the sujet without that most of the effect goes poof. * On my A7s, through that field curvature, the corners are also somewhat smeared. * The lens actually does have a lot of microcontrast in the center, i.e. is really sharp. From what I can find online, some good examples of the effect are shown here: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-ultron-11-7-35-mm-review/ https://phillipreeve.net/blog/voigtlander-ultron-11-7-35-mm-... I mentioned this lens, because it is in certain ways superior than the Leica, but in overall has very similar visual qualities. It doesn't show in every wide open picture, it requires this "context" to work its magic, and some of the examples show that. Another lens with this effect is the Voigtländer 21/1.8, but because it suffers in general in the sharpness department wide open it is less pronounced. I think on the above linked website there should be some examples for that, too. More perfect lenses look ... different. They certainly work better if you don't want these "visual pillars", so it is not like that field curvature is always the perfect thing to have, quite the contrary. However, it is a tool, or can be used as such, like so many other things in photography.

dannyw 4y ago

Are there any budget-friendly lens (assuming vintage) that also showcases this effect?

pixelfarmer 4y ago
Sorry for the late reply. And I have no idea what other lenses show this effect, but I wouldn't exclude that possibility. From what I gathered you will need a field curvature where towards the edges the focus runs away from the camera. It needs to be a somewhat faster lens, because stopped down the effect is less pronounced. And finally, it should be sharp enough to convey this "in focus" vs. "out of focus". I didn't know about all this at the time I got the Leica, only that it had field curvature wide open, and learned these things through using it. But considering available pictures online, there are maybe ways to figure the field curvature out, because most test/review sites are rather useless in that regard: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4042117089/roger-cicala-why-i-dont-use-an-mtf-bench-to-test-my-own-lenses https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/4042117089/roger-cicala-why... and for some additional info on top of that https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351719699/roger-cicala-field-curvature-for-fun-and-profit https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1351719699/roger-cicala-fi... Once you have seen these "special" images and their look it also makes it easier skimming through images from other lenses if they show that here and there. Roger also jokes about the 3D-pop at the end of the 2nd link, but considering that tilt-shift lenses can produce a miniature look by meddling with the "field curvature", getting specific other looks through usage of actual field curvature isn't too far fetched of a concept. It is some sort of an optical illusion in the end.